4 ms·

Another way put this is that he lent you money to build your company and then paid you money every month as a customer. When the note came due, you couldn't pa

by JackFr 7y ago

Another way put this is that he lent you money to build your company and then paid you money every month as a customer. When the note came due, you couldn't pay. One possibility that they cancelled their contract not to screw you, but because they felt you were not getting the job done and the future wasn't there for your company. Given that, it would make little sense to extend the note or continue the contract. As both customer and investor, your vision is not their problem. Lest you think I'm being to hard on you, I've worked at one startup which went bankrupt in a similar situation (most of the engineering team ended up at working for our biggest customer) and another in which the board fired the CEO, liquidated the bad bits and sold the good bits to one of our customers. In both those cases the founders saw themselves as victims of unscrupulous sharp players, but the reality was that they took other peoples money and were seemingly oblivious to the obligations that entailed.

ta1234567890 7y ago
You are right. There are always multiple sides and stories for the same situation. It is perfectly possible that it could be that way, and I wish it was that way because then it would only be a money issue, which could (in theory) be rationally resolved. Things that somehow contradict that, is how unwilling to resolve the issue the investor has been. The company was profitable at the time he ended his contract and called the note. At that time he said he didn't care about his note, that he'd just write it off as a loss and he'd get 50% back in taxes. He could also have gotten his money back by taking a payment plan. Additionally we offered up the assets as payment so we could avoid bankruptcy, but he refused. Then he abandoned the assets after acquiring them in bankruptcy. To me it doesn't make any sense, but I hope you are right, that this is only about his money and that we can somehow reach an agreement that puts a definitive end to this mess.
- unnouinceput 7y ago
  Ohh, if he was actively looking for a loss then he might've been on the hook with some bad people who were lending him the money and he was laundering them. You see, laundering is all about loss and looking bleak in the eyes of IRS (or equivalent). In the end he might not been an active asshole but just another victim.

by JackFr 7y ago

ta1234567890 7y ago

You are right. There are always multiple sides and stories for the same situation. It is perfectly possible that it could be that way, and I wish it was that way because then it would only be a money issue, which could (in theory) be rationally resolved. Things that somehow contradict that, is how unwilling to resolve the issue the investor has been. The company was profitable at the time he ended his contract and called the note. At that time he said he didn't care about his note, that he'd just write it off as a loss and he'd get 50% back in taxes. He could also have gotten his money back by taking a payment plan. Additionally we offered up the assets as payment so we could avoid bankruptcy, but he refused. Then he abandoned the assets after acquiring them in bankruptcy. To me it doesn't make any sense, but I hope you are right, that this is only about his money and that we can somehow reach an agreement that puts a definitive end to this mess.

unnouinceput 7y ago
Ohh, if he was actively looking for a loss then he might've been on the hook with some bad people who were lending him the money and he was laundering them. You see, laundering is all about loss and looking bleak in the eyes of IRS (or equivalent). In the end he might not been an active asshole but just another victim.